2
   

Left or Right: Which is more realistic/idealistic

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:12 pm
cjhsa wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
"liberalism" is like the North Star, it's not a destination, it's a direction.


Just keep following that star. When you see the glint of the rifle barrel in the moonlight, you've infringed on my sacred hunting grounds.
stfu
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:53 pm
dyslexia wrote:
stfu


No.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:13 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Who decides what someone deserves okie?

T
K
O


Many on the left say that CEO's dont deserve what they get paid, or that they dont deserve the fringe benefits they get.

Isn't that deciding who deserves what?


Certainly is. I'm comfortable saying that an individuals who give themselves bonuses while firing employees don't deserve their "bonuses." We aren't talking about wages MM, we are talking about infrastructure. I think that the poor deserve assistance, not because it's unfair, because I believe the deserve food and shelter, so do their children.

Problem for the conservatives is that they've argued themselves into a corner. If the Liberals are wrong; they do deserve this, we'd expect to see that these people (CEO example) stimulate the economy and provide more jobs etc.

That's the tax argument I've heard over and over from conservatives. The truth is that this doesn't happen, and the trickle down effect doesn't happen. Our countries money is top heavy.

I'm willing to debate. The average citizen "deserving" basic needs vs the CEO "deserving" their bonus. Wanna go?

I said "who decides?" not that nobody did/does. Okie says that those in need are greedy if they get what they need if they "don't deserve it." The CEO example lacks the dimension of "need" altogether. I can identify how a CEO would earn his bonus, can you or him tell me at what point you earn a roof over your head or stomach full of food?

Can you do it AND be conservative?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:20 pm
cjhsa wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
"liberalism" is like the North Star, it's not a destination, it's a direction.


Just keep following that star. When you see the glint of the rifle barrel in the moonlight, you've infringed on my sacred hunting grounds.


Considering the your intellectual firepower and aim, I'd wager that you couldn't hit the broad side of the metaphorical barn let alone put a hole in the door.

If you were talking about a real gun, I'm sure you have the capacity to shoot a man in cold blood. Nobody's ever accused you of being anything but a coward. Intellectual or otherwise.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:28 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Who decides what someone deserves okie?

Well, in general, what a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller. So if you work for whatever someone is willing to pay you for your work or your product, you have earned it, and therefore deserve it. Of course, life is unfair, but I think the person that receives the service of your work is a better judge of worth than some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere far removed from the situation. It is an imperfect world, but if one feels he is not being paid what he deserves, he can go somewhere else and let someone else decide. That is what freedom is all about.

Quote:
I think that you have mischaracterized the left. If someone earns a modest wage, I don't think they should have an above modest lifestyle. I do think however that they need a roof over their head and food no matter what they deserve.

The constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness, not happiness, and it guarantees freedom, but I don't read where it guarantees a roof over your head or food, even if you refuse to work, and you are able bodied.

Quote:
The notion that I've heard introduced lately here of class-envy (or something to that tune) is a interesting notion, but you extrapolate to much from simple observation.

I think it is a very real notion. Envying the rich gets a person exactly nowhere. I am not rich, but you know what, I don't care about being rich, only enough to live comfortably, and I feel sorry for many rich, because they are some of the most miserable people around. We often hear how the rich pay are getting all the tax breaks, well they pay most of the tax, so why not?

Quote:
Liberals don't think that a lower class person should live as a middle class, and a middle class should live as a upper class, etc. I think liberals believe that every class should be sustainable and (with effort) upgradeable.

I feel that the conservative vision of what an American should do to achieve success is based of non-uniform situations, which the conservative does not address. Any attempt to address this by liberals is simply dismissed as "a handout." The idea that everyone can achieve success via conservative principles is far too idealistic.
I think it is very realistic. Hard work, study, and simply showing up on time, doing your best, live frugally and responsibly, I have never personally seen anyone fail that does this. Hard luck can happen, but there are already safety nets for that.

Quote:
I see conservative stances on topics like abortion, and I'm left wondering what world they think they live in? In terms of what is practical and dealing with an uncomfortable reality, many conservatives would rather stick their head in the ground... or rather, their bible.

I am not ashamed for standing up for responsibility, which includes nurturing your own offspring. This issue transcends the Bible into all cultures and traditions, Diest. It is important to recognize the responsibility and primary purpose of sexual activity, and that is very lacking in today's culture. I am against all abortion, except I think where a crime has been committed already, such as rape or incest, but being a pragmatist, I think limiting late term abortions is at least honorable, sensible, and the only moral thing to do as a society. Abortions early on, I do not favor it, but I would not going to disobey the courts, however if I was a politician, I would use the bully pulpit to make speak out for honorable behavior. I recognize people may not follow it, but that is at least my right and responsibility to set a decent example as a politician.

Quote:
Note: MM, I'll leave you to debate with the conservatives on this topic, because despite your claim, their is no shortage of people who call themselves "true conservatives" ready to expand government on this issue and related issues.

If anything is shocking to me about okie's thoughts on liberals, it's that they have and over-idealistic view of mankind's good nature, AND that they are somehow bitter. The two ideas are really in conflict, and perhaps more relevant, I think very unrelated to liberal views all together.

If liberal views are in anyway forged by assumptions about mankind, I'd say it's the opposite of how okie claims. I think liberals cannot avoid the reality of greedy men and women.

Perhaps a moment to make an aside. I honestly believe that both left and right get bamboozled by a third group, who care for nothing but themselves. They exploit both groups in different ways, IMO. But that can be saved for another time.

I see modern liberal philosophy about dealing with the world we currently live in. Not the past. For their ideas on the future, some work, some don't. I'm fine with that, and I accept it going in. I think it's dishonest how conservatives frame their views as being a sure thing.

Free market is a great idea, and we use many parts of the idea, and we benefit greatly from it, but it's not perfect. It exists on a paying field which has never existed, and I don't expect ever will. Conservatives claiming else wise are being over idealistic IMO.

Having a tax system which favors the wealthy, doesn't work.

The trickle-down effect, doesn't work.

... at least in the world we live in. And that's my point for now: The world the conservative lives their mind in, is not the same one we walk.

T
K
O

I do not understand your post completely. My statements about liberals viewing human nature is relative to the belief that everybody will be nice to us if we be nice to them, and that government is a trustworthy instrument in the hands of mankind, and that utopia may actually be achievable on earth. The founders distrusted government, and understood the treachury of human nature, thus safeguards were established to protect us from government and from each other.

Lastly, the tax system has increasingly made higher earners shoulder more of the tax burden, so I don't know what you are talking about in regard to taxes. Trickle down does obviously work, as without wealth, there would be no jobs and no capital to create businesses and jobs. Read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics book, Diest. We as a society have to keep on creating wealth, otherwise just trading wealth eventually burns up all the wealth and the society becomes poorer. That is what concerns me in regard to a service oriented economy. All the more reason to go out and drill and produce energy, as well as natural resources, plus continue to grow our own food, manufacture goods, innovate new technology, etc., otherwise we die on the vine.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:39 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Who decides what someone deserves okie?

T
K
O


Many on the left say that CEO's dont deserve what they get paid, or that they dont deserve the fringe benefits they get.

Isn't that deciding who deserves what?


Certainly is. I'm comfortable saying that an individuals who give themselves bonuses while firing employees don't deserve their "bonuses." We aren't talking about wages MM, we are talking about infrastructure. I think that the poor deserve assistance, not because it's unfair, because I believe the deserve food and shelter, so do their children.

Problem for the conservatives is that they've argued themselves into a corner. If the Liberals are wrong; they do deserve this, we'd expect to see that these people (CEO example) stimulate the economy and provide more jobs etc.

That's the tax argument I've heard over and over from conservatives. The truth is that this doesn't happen, and the trickle down effect doesn't happen. Our countries money is top heavy.

I'm willing to debate. The average citizen "deserving" basic needs vs the CEO "deserving" their bonus. Wanna go?

I said "who decides?" not that nobody did/does. Okie says that those in need are greedy if they get what they need if they "don't deserve it." The CEO example lacks the dimension of "need" altogether. I can identify how a CEO would earn his bonus, can you or him tell me at what point you earn a roof over your head or stomach full of food?

Can you do it AND be conservative?

T
K
O

I will let stand with little comment on the internal contradiction of a rhetorical question that refers to a person being called greedy for desiring that which is essential.

i.e., Would one call a man greedy for wanting to breath air?

Apparently yes, if oakie thinks that he didn't deserve it.

btw, tko, nicely done
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:50 pm
okie wrote:
...I think the person that receives the service of your work is a better judge of worth than some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere far removed from the situation.


I think the billions of people who are infuriated about gas prices are a perfect judge then.

okie wrote:
I am not ashamed for standing up for responsibility, which includes nurturing your own offspring. This issue transcends the Bible into all cultures and traditions, Diest. It is important to recognize the responsibility and primary purpose of sexual activity, and that is very lacking in today's culture. I am against all abortion, except I think where a crime has been committed already, such as rape or incest, but being a pragmatist, I think limiting late term abortions is at least honorable, sensible, and the only moral thing to do as a society. Abortions early on, I do not favor it, but I would not going to disobey the courts, however if I was a politician, I would use the bully pulpit to make speak out for honorable behavior. I recognize people may not follow it, but that is at least my right and responsibility to set a decent example as a politician.


The question is not if you are against abortion, it is if you are for legislation making it illegal.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:55 pm
kuvasz wrote:
okie wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
okie wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
[It is not that the Right, or "conservativism" is a dirty word, rather that it exemplifies a position of holding no overarching coherent philosophy, except pure, unbridled greed.

Can you describe "greed" as you understand it?


Well son, my understanding of the meaning of greed, as well of its reprobation is the same one used throughout the entirety of Western civilization since Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, viz., greed is by definition excessive desire for money or possessions.

Virtue is a principle of temperance and moderation, which achieves a middle ground or mean between the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency of a moral quality. So, as bravery as a moral virtue achieves a mean between recklessness and cowardice, generosity as a moral virtue achieves a mean between wastefulness and greed.

And if you don't like Aristotle, the same admonishment against the aforementioned definition of greed is also presented by Jesus Christ and the Buddha.

I'm not your son, to start with.

Were you my son I would order DNA testing, immediately.

Excessive desire for money or possessions, okay, but I would expand on the definition by saying it is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves.

So if you desire what you need but if you don't deserve it, that is also greed.

No, that is called being lazy, and being lazy means that one is acting unfairly and shirking responsibility. It has nothing to do with excess except of an excess of rest.

According to Aristotle, the moral virtues include: courage, temperance, self-discipline, moderation, modesty, humility, generosity, friendliness, truthfulness, honesty, justice.

The moral vices include: cowardice, self-indulgence, recklessness, wastefulness, greed, vanity, untruthfulness, dishonesty, injustice. Acts of virtue bring honor to an individual, acts of vice bring dishonor to an individual.

Justice as a moral virtue includes lawfulness (universal justice) and fairness (particular justice). Injustice as a moral vice includes unlawfulness and unfairness.

Fairness requires that the privileges and responsibilities of persons in a given situation be distributed proportionally and equally (distributive justice). Fairness also requires that an unfair inequality or disproportion in the privileges and responsibilities of persons in a given situation be rectified (rectificatory justice).

Rectificatory justice may restore equality, or it can reallocate privileges and responsibilities to persons in a given situation, or may prescribe some form of penalty for persons who have been unjust, or may award some form of compensation to those persons who have been treated unfairly.

It is possible to learn about today even from men who died 2,400 years ago
.

I will respond when you learn how to quote.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 10:04 pm
Boy you really told him off there, Okie! He's going to feel the sting of that sharp retort for weeks! Laughing
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 10:08 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
...I think the person that receives the service of your work is a better judge of worth than some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere far removed from the situation.


I think the billions of people who are infuriated about gas prices are a perfect judge then.

Good example. The billions of people can be as infuriated as they wish to be, but they obviously must think the gasoline is worth the price or they would quit buying it. Remember, talk doesn't matter, it is the act of buying which makes them a willing buyer. Lots of people are unhappy about paying anything for lots of things, but they pay for them because it is worth it to them, plain and simple, a willing buyer and a willing seller. Also to look at details, a person may think it is worth buying gasoline at $4 to go to work, but they won't pay it now to go on a frivolous drive.

Quote:
okie wrote:
I am not ashamed for standing up for responsibility, which includes nurturing your own offspring. This issue transcends the Bible into all cultures and traditions, Diest. It is important to recognize the responsibility and primary purpose of sexual activity, and that is very lacking in today's culture. I am against all abortion, except I think where a crime has been committed already, such as rape or incest, but being a pragmatist, I think limiting late term abortions is at least honorable, sensible, and the only moral thing to do as a society. Abortions early on, I do not favor it, but I would not going to disobey the courts, however if I was a politician, I would use the bully pulpit to make speak out for honorable behavior. I recognize people may not follow it, but that is at least my right and responsibility to set a decent example as a politician.


The question is not if you are against abortion, it is if you are for legislation making it illegal.

T
K
O

I am in favor of allowing the states to determine their own laws, and I would be in favor of making it illegal for a doctor to take the life of a baby late term. Although I am against all abortions, I don't think outlawing early term abortions is practical at the present time. I would also be in favor of legislation to provide counseling and adoptive services for those women that are ill prepared to be mothers. I firmly believe the current atmosphere breeds a disrespect for all human life in general. I cannot imagine how anyone could jerk a life from the womb and destroy it. It is barbarianism at its worst, to prey on the weakest among us.

I would have to review all of the details of this issue to refine my stance, but in general, the above would be a start at it.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 10:25 pm
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
...I think the person that receives the service of your work is a better judge of worth than some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere far removed from the situation.


I think the billions of people who are infuriated about gas prices are a perfect judge then.

Good example. The billions of people can be as infuriated as they wish to be, but they obviously must think the gasoline is worth the price or they would quit buying it. Remember, talk doesn't matter, it is the act of buying which makes them a willing buyer. Lots of people are unhappy about paying anything for lots of things, but they pay for them because it is worth it to them, plain and simple, a willing buyer and a willing seller. Also to look at details, a person may think it is worth buying gasoline at $4 to go to work, but they won't pay it now to go on a frivolous drive.

You could make this argument if they had an alternative to purchase. In cities with a functional public transit system, many people are making the choice to travel via bus/train. Actions are being taken.

okie wrote:

Quote:
okie wrote:
I am not ashamed for standing up for responsibility, which includes nurturing your own offspring. This issue transcends the Bible into all cultures and traditions, Diest. It is important to recognize the responsibility and primary purpose of sexual activity, and that is very lacking in today's culture. I am against all abortion, except I think where a crime has been committed already, such as rape or incest, but being a pragmatist, I think limiting late term abortions is at least honorable, sensible, and the only moral thing to do as a society. Abortions early on, I do not favor it, but I would not going to disobey the courts, however if I was a politician, I would use the bully pulpit to make speak out for honorable behavior. I recognize people may not follow it, but that is at least my right and responsibility to set a decent example as a politician.


The question is not if you are against abortion, it is if you are for legislation making it illegal.

T
K
O

I am in favor of allowing the states to determine their own laws, and I would be in favor of making it illegal for a doctor to take the life of a baby late term. Although I am against all abortions, I don't think outlawing early term abortions is practical at the present time. I would also be in favor of legislation to provide counseling and adoptive services for those women that are ill prepared to be mothers. I firmly believe the current atmosphere breeds a disrespect for all human life in general. I cannot imagine how anyone could jerk a life from the womb and destroy it. It is barbarianism at its worst, to prey on the weakest among us.

I would have to review all of the details of this issue to refine my stance, but in general, the above would be a start at it.


Then by all means take the time to think about your views, and further cultivate them. When you're ready to articulate them, make a thread, and give me a heads up. I'm always game.

Take your time.
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 05:52 am
Diest TKO wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
"liberalism" is like the North Star, it's not a destination, it's a direction.


Just keep following that star. When you see the glint of the rifle barrel in the moonlight, you've infringed on my sacred hunting grounds.


Considering the your intellectual firepower and aim, I'd wager that you couldn't hit the broad side of the metaphorical barn let alone put a hole in the door.

If you were talking about a real gun, I'm sure you have the capacity to shoot a man in cold blood. Nobody's ever accused you of being anything but a coward. Intellectual or otherwise.

T
K
O


I'm not skeered. Words will never hurt me. But I know where you live.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:07 am
cjhsa wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
"liberalism" is like the North Star, it's not a destination, it's a direction.


Just keep following that star. When you see the glint of the rifle barrel in the moonlight, you've infringed on my sacred hunting grounds.


Considering the your intellectual firepower and aim, I'd wager that you couldn't hit the broad side of the metaphorical barn let alone put a hole in the door.

If you were talking about a real gun, I'm sure you have the capacity to shoot a man in cold blood. Nobody's ever accused you of being anything but a coward. Intellectual or otherwise.

T
K
O


I'm not skeered. Words will never hurt me. But I know where you live.


Nobody is ever going to be impressed by your internet-tough-guy-ness.

You don't know where I live, and if you did, I'm sure you'd be even more embarrassing in person. Your hollow threats mean nothing. I don't want you "skeered." I'd rather you get educated.

You aren't going to contribute to the thread. You should go, but if you continue to keep up the gunslinger act, I'll ask the mods to get involved.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:09 am
Please do. Please also continue your ill informed and clueless rants about your ideals. We all really enjoy it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:15 am
Just to really answer the question posed in the title once and for all, I got this from another site:

"Was heading towards the checkout and their was a paper stand next to it. A young man, I would say early twenties looked at the paper and made a comment about the headlines. Which was about gas prices.

He then proceeded to tell me how stays poor to use the system to pay his way. I replied "why in the hell should I take care of you?"


He says hows that? I asked him where do you think the government gets the money, from hard working people like me who pays taxes. Why should I pay your way because you're too lazy to work?

He told me he didn't mean to upset me.

He started walking away and I told him go Obama."



This kind of thing goes on every day. The entitlement crew is growing, and as they realize they can simply vote to have a check written out to them from the treasury, it will only get worse.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:18 am
Does any of the conservatives in A2K care to claim cjhsa? I'm serious here. Does anyone think that he is a conservative? If not, what is he?

Fox?
ican?
okie?
Tico?
George?

Anyone care to classify him? I think it would prove pretty relevant to the dialog re: how people identify and how that effects political definitions.

I think the statement that modern republicans are not conservatives is a true one, but it doesn't stop them from marketing themselves as a conservative, or people buying.

Isn't the "conservative" brand just easily exposed and never actually an applied philosophy.

Is cjhsa a conservative based on what he presents in these threads? Do you think that he thinks he is? IF so, what does that mean to others who think they are "conservative?"

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:20 am
Typical. Going after the poster and ignoring the post. As I've said to you before, stick to Game Boy.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:25 am
cjhsa wrote:
Typical. Going after the poster and ignoring the post. As I've said to you before, stick to Game Boy.


Which post?

The gun barrel in the moonlight post or the other forum hearsay post?

Even if you won't contribute anything to dialog, I will make an example of you. At least that way you will have contributed to the larger discussion.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:46 am
Stubborn and stupid. Not qualities I expected to see from you D.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 06:49 am
I'll give you a chance here cjhsa, do you consider your politics to be conservative?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 10:38:59